UPDF team... first, congratulations on UPDF passing.
I believe it is your team's responsibility, now, to address the comments
received. As there was STRONG OBJECTION, which, upon review, is
substantive in terms of effecting actual adoption, I urge the UPDF team to
make a concerted effort to produce the requested improvements.
I know you worked long and hard to get UPDF across the goal line. The
objection received does not appear to be from someone who disagrees with
the specification, rather someone who is looking for guidance that will
encourage adoption. It does not good for the PWG to pass standards that
will not (or cannot readily) be adopted.
Hope your team will meet this challenge!
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
----------------------------------------------
----- Forwarded by Harry Lewis/Boulder/IBM on 06/02/2004 10:52 AM -----
thrasher at lexmark.com
Sent by: owner-pwg-announce at pwg.org
06/02/2004 07:35 AM
To
pwg-announce at pwg.org
cc
Subject
PWG-ANNOUNCE> PWG ANNOUNCE> PWG Formal Vote Results for UPDF 1.0
The results of the recently completed PWG Formal Vote for the UPDF 1.0
Specification are as follows:
Vote Count:
Yes: 8
No: 1 (with strong objection)
Abstain: 2
PWG Process Document Criteria:
1. Met the 25 percent participation (needed at least 9 votes).
2. Met the 80 percent approval requirement from the No w/ strong
objection.
3. Met the 50 percent of votes either yes or no....(needed at least 5)
UPDF Formal Vote passes.
Note: There was one additioinal Yes vote that was received after the
voting
period closed.
By the guidelines in the PWG Process Document (both old and new draft),
comments submitted
with a No vote (or No with strong objection) are to be posted and
discussed
on the PWG Announce
email list......
Here are the comments:
1. The specification does not include examples for each element,
nor does it tie each schema together to show a complete
implementation. See the (many) W3C specifications for XML and/or
SGML-based formats which *do* include examples.
2. I do not see a single complete sample file for any printer
device. I see a lot of fragments made by Norbert, but I don't
see a complete file that could be used as reference against
the spec or schema files that shows the current specification
is useful or feasible for a driver, application, or UI component
to use.
3. The separation of schemas is confusing and leads me to believe
that a single device description is composed of multiple XML
files. Given the limited sample fragments on the PWG FTP
server, it is not clear what the actual organization is supposed
to be. THIS NEEDS TO BE DEFINED in order to allow for actual
interoperability and network transparency.
4. My general impression is that the current specification is
not complete enough to be used in an actual printing
environment nor does it provide any advantages over existing
interfaces and formats. Of what use is a new format if it only
does what every other format does?
I will send a separate not when the 51xx.n number is assigned and is
published as a candidate standard.
Jerry Thrasher
PWG Secretary
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pwg.org/archives/upd/attachments/20040602/1d1c03e0/attachment-0001.html